Copyright 2004, Roadracing World Publishing, Inc.

FIRST PERSON/OPINION:

Via e-mail:

Under US laws you [sanctioning body, event organizer, tire supplier, etc.] can not protect yourself from negligence by having someone sign a release or wavier of liability. If any tire manufacturer supplied tires that they reasonably knew were prone to defects that could cause a catastrophic failure, then that would be considered negligence on the part of the tire manufacturer. The real issue is was it known in May of 2003 that there were serious defects in tires that were being supplied at the time or was the problem discovered after the failures. Anyone that races a motorcycle in any form of closed course competition assumes the risk of injury or death by placing themselves in the competition. The competitor and the event organizer must take reasonable measures to ensure the safety of all persons involved in the event. Negligence as it relates to tires used for racing only is an issue that has been in the courts in the past for open wheel cars, and others forms of auto racing.

William Staab
Canton, Georgia


FIRST PERSON/OPINION:

Via e-mail:

I won’t comment on the validity, if any, of the potential Livingood case. I don’t have the specific facts in the case and I am not an attorney. But, my understanding of liability law (from 25+ years in the corporate manufacturing world) would suggest that waiver of no waiver, there still is potential liability for clearly defective design or manufacture.

A waiver certainly does not provide blanket immunity from liability, nor should it. It probably does serve as a shelter from those risks which one reasonably expects to be a part of the activity, but not necessarily from grossly negligent actions or inactions.

Every ski area in North America requires a waiver when you buy a lift pass, and if I fall and break my leg, I probably don’t have a leg to stand on (pun intended) to sue, but if the resort fails to mark a hidden hazard, or if a lift collapses and I am hurt, you know for sure that they will be held liable.

In this case, one might surmise that that pattern of tire failures for Dunlop tires at high speed tracks should have alerted Dunlop to the possibility that there was a design or manufacturing defect.

Robert Sheidler
Lordsburg, New Mexico


FIRST PERSON/OPINION:

Via e-mail:

In response to the reader reaction posted thus far on the site, I feel the need to add my two cents.

Motorsports, at least in North America, I’ve always felt was a bit like a house of cards that could easily be blown down by a frivolous or unnecessary lawsuit.

I find myself surprised then, that at least in principle, I feel the need to support the threat of lawsuit by Brian Livengood against Dunlop.

Sometimes parts fail, and by and large that’s an accepted part of racing. However, I think the SEVERAL similar failures of Dunlop slicks (2 in Canada, 4? in the U.S) demonstrates, at least to the casual observer like me, a reckless indifference to rider safety. To this point, the only rider to outwardly criticize Dunlop has been Mat Mladin, and even he’s been quiet on this issue lately.

Do I want Brian Livengood to be rewarded some ridiculous sum of money and risk motorsports as we know them? Of course not but hopefully, the threat of a lawsuit will Change Dunlop’s seemingly arrogant and cavalier attitude.

Jeremy Kinzl
Burlington, Ontario, Canada


FIRST PERSON/OPINION:

Via e-mail:

You’ve posted e-mails from people concerning a lawyer who may file a lawsuit concerning the Dunlop tire problem. As you pointed out, he is still researching the issue. This doesn’t make filing the lawsuit a certainty. Also, filing a lawsuit means you have a good-faith belief in the merits of your case. This doesn’t mean you are sure to win.

Most importantly, once the lawsuit is filed, the parties can conduct discovery and obtain copies of all relevant material. This is when the facts come out. Livengood might find a smoking gun, or he might not. If so, they will ask the court to dismiss their complaint. The point is, without the lawsuit and the discovery permitted by it, nobody would ever know “the truth” except for Dunlop.

Given the press generated by the Dunlop failures, I would think most readers would want to know “the truth”.

Aaron Woell
Dekalb, Illinois


FIRST PERSON/OPINION:

Via e-mail:

Though I am in the minority (possibly an army of one), I agree with Mr. Livengood’s efforts to bring a lawsuit against Dunlop. I have read reports of Dunlop tire failures for years now, many in the pages of RW. In my opinion, Dunlop has a design and/or manufacturing problem with their race tires. The problem(s) only affects a small percentage of the tires they produce. Given that only a few incidents will occur, most of which not resulting in serious injury and that Dunlop can hide behind release waivers when injuries do occur; Dunlop has no financial incentive to ever fix the problem(s). I don’t know what Mr. Livengood’s motives are but I see the potential result of eliminating unnecessary injuries. I find sadness in the fact that a lawsuit is required to get a company to do the right thing but if that’s what it takes then so be it.

Aaron Loyd
Fort Collins, Colorado


FIRST PERSON/OPINION:

Via e-mail:

Although I agree that lawyers wreck most of the issues they become involved in, I actually agree with the fact that Brian may have a possible lawsuit. This one does not mean the sky is falling and it is the end of the sport, it is simply a lawsuit to hold Dunlop responsible, for not having one or two blowouts and serious injuries from those blowouts but multiple blowouts. Does racing allow manufacturers a huge berth of safety because it’s racing which then can allow them to manufacture faulty equipment? I don’t think so, I think racing should hold them to a higher standard simply because of the danger. I don’t recall any privateers on Michelins or Pirellis having blowouts like this, there are way more of them out there than what we see in the AMA series. Let’s not bag on Brian or the lawyer simply because we feel racing is dangerous, let’s look at it because it is racing and a manufacture needs to be absolutely sure it is putting the best product out there, which in my opinion Dunlop did not at that time.

Sean Edgett
Minneapolis, Minneapolis


FIRST PERSON/OPINION:

Via e-mail:

I was shocked when reading about the reaction people took regarding Brian Livengood’s possible lawsuit against Dunlop. I do believe a manufacture has a level of responsibility when manufacturing a product. Especially when it’s for racing. When you purchase a $350-$400 set of tires you expect a certain level of development went into the tires and they are safe to ride on. The exploding tires have been an ongoing issue and to my knowledge there’s been no explanation to the public from the Dunlop in response to the issue. I’m sure Dunlop has been investigating why tires explode and have tried to prevent such occurrences. However, if the issues isn’t resolved then I agree with Livengood’s reaction. I’m guessing he has over 1/2-million dollars in medical expenses (hopefully paid by his insurance) due to a product that has a “known” and reoccurring problem. For those of you who oppose Livengood’s reaction, under the same level of thinking you must also think Firestone is not responsible for trucks rolling over and killing families. Perhaps you’re also opposed to workman’s compensation for employees who at risk. The waivers we sign when entering a racetrack doesn’t mean a manufacture or race organization can turn their head and put people at risk. If you have a problem, fix it! It would be a nice gesture if Dunlop offered to cover the medical expenses. However, that would only make Dunlop look guilty. I believe Dunlop has a responsibility and should do the right thing. If it takes a lawsuit then I support Livengood’s decision and hope he is compensated.

Chris Scott
Laguna Niguel, California